I observe with astonishment that science has today resigned itself to the apparent world; a real world--whatever it may be like--we certainly have no organ for knowing it.

At this point we may ask: by means of what organ of knowledge can we posit even this antithesis?--

That a world accessible to our organs is also understood to be dependent upon these organs, that we understand a world as being subjectively conditioned, is not to say that an objective world is at all possible. Who compels us to think that subjectivity is real, essential?

The "in-itself" is even an absurd conception; a "constitutioning-itself" is nonsense; we possess the concept "being," "thing," only as a relational concept--

The worst thing is that with the old antithesis "apparent" and "true" the correlative value judgment "lacking in value" and "absolutely valuable" has developed.

The apparent world is not counted as a "valuable" world; appearance is supposed to constitute an objection to supreme value. Only a "true" world can be valuable in itself--

Prejudice of prejudices! Firstly, it would be possible that the true constitution of things was so hostile to the presuppositions of life, so opposed to them, that we needed appearance in order to be able to live--After all, this is the case in so many situations; e. g., in marriage.

Our empirical world would be determined by the instincts of self-preservation even as regards the limits of its knowledge: we would regard as true, good, valuable that which serves the preservation of the species--

a. We possess no categories by which we can distinguish a true from an apparent world. (There might only be an apparent world, but not our apparent world.)

b. Assuming the true world, it could still be a world less valuable for us; precisely the quantum of illusion might be of a higher rank on account of its value for our preservation. (Unless appearance as such were grounds for condemnation?)

c. That a correlation exists between degrees of value and degrees of reality (so that the supreme values also possess the supreme reality) is a metaphysical postulate proceeding from the presupposition that we know the order of rank of values; namely, that this order of rank is a moral order--Only with this presupposition is truth necessarily part of the definition of all the highest values.

( B )

It is of cardinal importance that one should abolish the true world. It is the great inspirer of doubt and devaluator in respect of the world we are: it has been our most dangerous attempt yet to assassinate life.

War on all presuppositions on the basis of which one has invented a true world. Among these is the presupposition that moral values are the supreme values.

The supremacy of moral valuation would be refuted if it could be shown to be the consequence of an immoral valuation --as a special case of actual immorality--it would thus reduce itself to an appearance, and as appearance it would cease to have any right as such to condemn appearance.

( C )

The "will to truth" would then have to be investigated psychologically: it is not a moral force, but a form of the will to power. This would have to be proved by showing that it employs every immoral means: metaphysicians above all.

We are today faced with testing the assertion that moral values are the supreme values. Method in investigation is attained only when all moral prejudices have been overcome:--it represents a victory over morality--

It is a beautiful passage, in which we can distinguish what held Nietzsche back from a comprehensive clarity. He still believed in, at least worked from, the duality of truth and appearance. In this way it could not become apparent to him that the value is not what derives from the truth/appearance of the world/a thing, he was not (morally) strong enough to reverse this conception, as I have done -- to arrive at the far more useful idea that value (more precisely the act of valuing) gives rise to both appearance and truth.

This is not "the truth" -- it is far more than that, it is the ground at the root of all true/false evaluation. It defines "false" as inconsistent with self-value, and commands that we take it as such! Not many of you will see the consequences of this last bit yet, but it gives a direction to the human intellect, where up until now this strange faculty on top of our ape-ness has merely been accidental, drifting, and only maturing in spite of itself.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

I renamed this thread (again) -- I realize that I had not yet posted an OP explaning value ontology. It has come up as parts of other threads.

ILP is a forum where ideas are born, not where they can be developed to maturity... the traffic is too fast, there is too much superficial talk going on. But I would like there to be an ILP thread dedicated to this idea, especially as it has been created here, though now development of it is largely taking place elsewhere.

To ILP and its crowded halls!

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

I think what held Nietzsche back was not his belief in appearance/truth. He was obviously quite ready to move on from that...

It was morality that held him back! Victory in the battle against it was -just- beyond his reach, and only because of his positioning in history. That's why he is more a prophet than a protagonist. He sensed all this, which is why he waited for the philosopher of the future.

I would suggest never to ignore the will to power though, and to be very careful to interpret it as it was meant.

Do you mean that the passage is in truth full of beauty, or that it appears to be full of beauty?

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Uh-uh. He was just knocking Platonic/Cartesian/Kantian dualism. The true world he wants to abolish is in the imaginations of philosophers such as these, and of course those of Christians.

"Causation "itself" is simply an abstraction of the fact that there are always causes for everything that exists. Causation is an idea, the "cause" of this idea is (properly, namely that cause of the idea which is truly adequate to its ideatum) the fact that causation is always the case (that things always have causes);, or, perhaps you want to extend that causal structure to every moment of thought and experience you ever had that ended up contributing to your ability to understand the fact that causation is always the case." - Wyld

pezermeregild wrote:I think what held Nietzsche back was not his belief in appearance/truth. He was obviously quite ready to move on from that...

It was morality that held him back! Victory in the battle against it was -just- beyond his reach, and only because of his positioning in history. That's why he is more a prophet than a protagonist. He sensed all this, which is why he waited for the philosopher of the future.

I have come to the same conclusions. He was not morally independent, simply not strong enough -- the Christian weakness and pessimism toward the world was still in his roots.

It is interesting to read his notebooks. At one point he admits that he is not strong enough to will the eternal recurrence of the same. But he had Zarathustra will it anyway.

I would suggest never to ignore the will to power though, and to be very careful to interpret it as it was meant.

For a long time I have tried to explain everything in terms of will to power. It doesn't add up if we take it to be the root of all activity. After all, what would will to power? There is no explanation of the emerging of a perspective here. Nietzsche seems to have been content to leave this unexplained. Perhaps he was not, but he made a show of being very happy with it.

We may now admit to ourselves that the passages in which he describes the will to power and the eternal return as ultimate realities, are clearly written by an intoxicated man.

As an extension of value-ontology, the will to power will serve well. Before, it has not been of any use as it remained God-like, ungraspable, "just there". I've never been content with such 'explanations'.

Fuck me, you're on to something...

It is something yes. And it is very applicable, understanding it makes a man more powerful. Understanding only the will to power without this makes him weaker, as the concept of power is fundamentally rooted in the other / otherness, as hard as N tried to bend it into the fabric of the identity of entities.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Faust wrote:Uh-uh. He was just knocking Platonic/Cartesian/Kantian dualism. The true world he wants to abolish is in the imaginations of philosophers such as these, and of course those of Christians.

That was not just what he was doing, this knocking over of the ideas of old philosophers was only one of the consequences of his thinking, which was aimed at a comprehensive clarity.

Nietzsche knew that his thinking was 'only' a prelude. It should come as no surprise that there is now a continuation of his work, a definitive commencement of a philosophy of the future.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Do you mean that the passage is in truth full of beauty, or that it appears to be full of beauty?

Neither contain the necessary context for "truth" or "appearing" to make sense in terms of stern logic

Does neither in truth contain the necessary context for "truth" or "appearing" to make sense in terms of stern logic, or does neither appear to contain that context... Don't bother answering, this is already getting boring.

It appears to me that your posts in this thread are just a load of self-flattering---nonsense. Very disappointing.

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

All cleverness and Ernst aside, perhaps you may understand why truth is conditional to valuing, and why the activity valuing is not conditional to the term "truth".

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Fixed Cross wrote:All cleverness and Ernst aside, perhaps you may understand why truth is conditional to valuing, and why the activity valuing is not conditional to the term "truth".

Truth is not conditional to valuing. If there is valuing, then that is the truth, so valuing and truth are coeval; neither precedes the other.

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

I'm not getting it. The only truth is psychological truth. I think N has your idea covered.

"Causation "itself" is simply an abstraction of the fact that there are always causes for everything that exists. Causation is an idea, the "cause" of this idea is (properly, namely that cause of the idea which is truly adequate to its ideatum) the fact that causation is always the case (that things always have causes);, or, perhaps you want to extend that causal structure to every moment of thought and experience you ever had that ended up contributing to your ability to understand the fact that causation is always the case." - Wyld

Sauwelios wrote:It appears to me that your posts in this thread are just a load of self-flattering---nonsense. Very disappointing.

The crux of it is -- why should I yield to your language games? Here you have entered a ground where the use of grammar as exact logic can simply not apply. The axiom "self-valuing / valuing other in terms of self-value" dictates your tenacity, but at the same time prevents it to be effective, due to its particular premises being antithetical to value-ontology.

Value predicates all truth/falseness/ appearance/appearing, because all these terms require a standard to which they (are)(do).

Such a standard is called a value.How is such a value established?By self-valuingof a subject.

The subject is thereby defined.This subject wills to power. Thereby is the world defined.

The world is will to power, but the subjects, of which the world is composed, are self-valuing and valuing the other/world in terms of this self-value.

The will to power as primary assumes a subjectivity which is not given by our understanding of science.Self-valuing, the activity of an entity (force / form) to relate to other entities while still remaining a structural integrity, explains this subjectivity. It explains it as well as is possible to a consciousness -- it explains it in terms of itself.

As all good definitions, this one is circular if we understand the term well. But its application is not circular, on the contrary, it forms an arrow where there was only chaos. The application of 'merely' the will to power as if this is the ground of all givens, leads to a circularity of action and reaction, push, counterpush. It is predictable, and only by the 'magical' quality of dialectic does it acquire meaning, substance. This quality is rooted in the existence of the subjects and his inherent will to advance over decay and to manipulate appearances to this end.

The entire given of relating, whether electrical, chemical, physical, psychological or logical, may or may not appear as will to power, but always appears as value-interaction.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Faust wrote:I'm not getting it. The only truth is psychological truth. I think N has your idea covered.

Regarding truth, he had it covered.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

What is new about my idea is that it establishes the ground of appearance.Like truth, appearance is conditional to a reference frame, in the human case the senses and the brain.Unlike truth, appearance has no requirement of a system of conscious definitions.

The difference between 'appearing' and 'self-valuing / valuing (otherness) in terms of the established self-value' is that the former is only half a definition ( to whom / what does it appear? What is "it"? ) whereas the latter includes subject, object and a verb including both. It also explains why, how things appear as they do. Nietzsche did not do this. My definition is more technical.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

It is an idea including the missing benevolence in Nietzsches thinking. He was the final critic. I am a critical constructor.My definitions will hold.

Thought is construction, good thought is critical construction. Criticism without construction is entropy. N. arrived at the consequence of his deepest assumptions -- disintegration.

I've been there, done that, climbed out of it and dived back in... now I know what kind of value I expected to find in that mad sea, why I got there in the first place. I too, believed. I believed that there was still going to be something, if I attempted to judge objectively. Apparently I was strong - or lucky! - enough to attain to what N. could not -- the real-life realization that I exist as an entity only to the measure that I am actively discriminating 'unfairly'!

Well what is the fairest way to judge unfairly? To at least understand the terms of your judgment.Nietzsche did not arrive there. Not because he was not capable of it perhaps, perhaps he was superior to me intellectually, but because he did not have the real-world context that I have, the means to create and consume value, the reduction of society to an appraisal affair of common denominators -- Perhaps he, in his ethical superiority to us (me), still took valuing for granted.

I think that I have been very nihilistic without knowing it, before I was led to this idea by without-music.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

Sauwelios wrote:It appears to me that your posts in this thread are just a load of self-flattering---nonsense. Very disappointing.

The crux of it is -- why should I yield to your language games?

No, that can't be the crux, as I've played no language games in this thread.

Here you have entered a ground where the use of grammar as exact logic can simply not apply. The axiom "self-valuing / valuing other in terms of self-value" dictates your tenacity, but at the same time prevents it to be effective, due to its particular premises being antithetical to value-ontology.

Value predicates all truth/falseness/ appearance/appearing, because all these terms require a standard to which they (are)(do).

All this is just nonsense which may fool some into thinking that it's deep, but not me.

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

All weathers are wild, you know what this means? Wolf age, wind age, ~ ᚨOur polity does not copy the laws of neighboring states; we are rather a pattern to others. ~ Thucydidesᛉᛋᛞ

There are innumerable seeds in the earth, innumerably many more than the reckoning of either living or dead trees- the sound of the seeds growing is deafening, and drowns out the sound of all the falling oceans of wood in the forests- but, perhaps, the sound made by the seeds can only be heard with our thoughts. ~ Parodites, 3rd Pentad

The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must. ~ Thucydides

"[T]ruth is conditional to valuing, and [...] the activity valuing is not conditional to the term 'truth'."

Did you perhaps mean, "the term 'truth' is conditional to the activity valuing, and" etc.? (Valuing can only be an activity, but truth need not be just a term, of course.)

The thoughts behind your expressions (in this thread) may be logically sound, but your expressions themselves are not. Perhaps you feel you needn't be bothered with that; but I think you do, as you're trying to communicate your thoughts to others here. For example, the question I just asked you: do you feel like, "of course that's what I meant", or "of course that's not what I meant"? I really wonder. Do you consider yourself a precise writer? I don't; I don't think you even aspire to be.

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Fixed Cross wrote:It is an idea including the missing benevolence in Nietzsches thinking. He was the final critic. I am a critical constructor.My definitions will hold.

Thought is construction, good thought is critical construction. Criticism without construction is entropy. N. arrived at the consequence of his deepest assumptions -- disintegration.

Yes, this "unconditional" or unchecked/unmediated "will to the objective(value)" is only part of the equation, and without its counterpart - what we call "subjective existence" - it is only massive destructivity of the subject it/him/herself. Why is this? The following gives us a clue: "The will of non-living things is stronger than the will of living things". What does this mean? Objectivity-"as-such" being thus and ONLY a will to non-self. This is (self)destructivity par excellence.

As you say, criticism must include constructivity, at least implicitly so - where it does not, it only lays waste indiscriminately to... itself. As the scope and external power of this critical capacity expands its interior erodes, it becomes increasingly unstable and precarious until, at a critical (no pun intended, but there is a nice double-meaning here) juncture its structure/s collapse.

Will to objectivity-as-such (especially where one wills this in a not fully acknowledged or known manner) is itself grounded in the implicit (and mistaken) need to derive the is, or so it seems to me. This implicit need itself seems to arise from the presence of unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions near the root of one's (thinking-feeling) being--a disconnectivity or insufficient (self)overlapping of valuation.

I've been there, done that, climbed out of it and dived back in... now I know what kind of value I expected to find in that mad sea, why I got there in the first place. I too, believed. I believed that there was still going to be something, if I attempted to judge objectively.

Exactly. And this belief can only be sustained to the extent that one never, ever attains what one otherwise (admittingly or not) aspires to with/in this believing. We can see this as literally the will to/of the "non-living" escaping the encompassing context of a will of/to "living things", to the "living-as-such" or of its only just itself. This "will to/of the living" contra willing objectivity-as-such is the axiom, or posited violence with which we remove all mistaken needs for is-derivation. But the crux is that, for this imposition to be properly violent, potent and complete, it must be intentional, fully conscious. The history of philosophy up until the present, including Nietzsche, has been the history of only semi-conscious positing of the violent axiom of 'life-as-such' imposed upon the will of the non-living. It makes perfect sense that this limit can only be seen and overcome by the adoption of a perspective which subordinates the distinction "living" and "non-living" to a higher unity and difference: value, valuing-activity (i.e. both living and non-living things value).

Apparently I was strong - or lucky! - enough to attain to what N. could not -- the real-life realization that I exist as an entity only to the measure that I am actively discriminating 'unfairly'!

Well what is the fairest way to judge unfairly? To at least understand the terms of your judgment.

Yes----at least. This is only the barest beginning. Yet the abyssal distance between this initial 'point' and all that comes before it and is insufficient to it seems, for many, insurmountable. The inertia of the past world-history of what I will call "self-abdicating valuation" and all that stems, imperfectly, from it---what has thus far been too afraid to stare itself fully in the mirror---still presents a massive barrier, veiling this understanding from all save the most radically open and totally honest thinkers, who are fully capable of re-evaluating EVERYTHING they previously held cherished and true. Lacking such a prerequisite of un-hindered intellectual honesty, I have strong doubts that this higher perspective of value-ontology could ever penetrate the massively closed inertial structures everywhere faithfully obedient to the dictums of the past.

Nietzsche did not arrive there. Not because he was not capable of it perhaps, perhaps he was superior to me intellectually, but because he did not have the real-world context that I have, the means to create and consume value, the reduction of society to an appraisal affair of common denominators -- Perhaps he, in his ethical superiority to us (me), still took valuing for granted.

I think this is it, yes. As Heidegger said, truth is what is closest and thus what is furthest away- the most indistinguishable. It takes a severe nihilistic will to insert degrees of separation even here. Nietzsche was far too optimistic to consciously possess such a nihilism (but we see the fruits of his (and others, sauwelios here being one example) inability to separate himself from such a standard of a willing in the more non-conscious realm).

I think that I have been very nihilistic without knowing it, before I was led to this idea by without-music.

Absolutely, yes.

Additionally, I think no one here has taken the more careful time to really understand what Nietzsche is saying where you quote him in this OP.... readers here would be wise to revisit these passages with more authentic and un-closed desire, as opposed to a feeling of obligation or duty.

Last edited by aletheia on Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]

The real problem is that these thinkings (of Nietzsche, among others) still make use of an understanding of truth as the objective-as-such. Even where this objectivity is flatly denied to exist, or it is acknowledged that even if it did exist it would be entirely impossible to know anyway - even here (indeed even most here) this objective still operates as the implicit standard of truth, of what constitutes the highest truth status or the "most true".

Metaphysics everywhere still rules, not the least where it is most vehemently denounced. Yet we now have in our hands, perhaps for the first time, the tool with which to dispose of this spectre entirely: that tool is the system of value-ontology.

'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]

Maybe you guys---aletheia and Fixed Cross---should invite Three Times Great to this discussion: then you can really have a party...

Value Philosophy: First philosophy is the positing of the metaphysics one values the most.Value Metaphysics: Being is essentially Self-Valuing: beings exist inasmuch as they value themselves.Value Axiology: Valuation is a rational value, as the disvaluation of it would disvalue itself, too.Value Logic: Logic's self-identical "A" is a value, and not necessarily a fact.Value Ethics: It is just to consider things just, and unjust to consider things unjust.

Sauwelios wrote:Maybe you guys---aletheia and Fixed Cross---should invite Three Times Great to this discussion: then you can really have a party...

Do you want to contribute something here, or are you just a troll?

'The daemonic genius is the only thing capable of surviving the odds of existence versus no existence... because of what it empirically tolerates though fundamentally defying it, the deepest existence is satyrical. The grin on a primordial sailor, grim to all things human, his enjoyment in the uncertainty. He knows himself by this very factor. Valuing the uncertainty of the universe as an extension of oneself - this sailor is the primordial being.' [Source]